Disagreeing with the judges and finding flaw in the current judging system is by no means "libelous". I find it very frustrating when people don't have the nuanced judgement to see that being respectful is not necessarily equivalent to agreeing. If we're not allowed to disagree and discuss, what's the point of a discussion forum?

Disagreeing with the judges is one thing, can you honestly say several of the comments in this thread re: Mirai vs. Kiira is merely a disagreement with the judges or should we revisit the actual wording used?

just saw mirai skate on video on universal sports page, while i agree it is better than coc-no major errors, there wasnt the feeling in this one as in coc and also mirai made more little mistakes that also cost her the title. the most obvious was her layback, but there was other little mistakes as well. she wasn't as flowing in coc in spots.

Yet, several people termed such skate as being inexplicably behind Korpi because judges were on drugs. Or another, Kiira = female Patrick Chan, whatever that means. Clearly, there are a tons of quantifiable reasons as why Mirai didn't win gold, she was not flawless and Kiira didn't bomb either but someone was sure she did just because she fell once.

I wonder if those who people jumped to conclusion pre-maturely and posted libelous and unwarranted attacks towards the judges, yet again, would come forward and apologize for their behaviors? I found it very disappointing that certain people can only enjoy skating if their favorites or countrymen won and anything else = conspiracy, corruption, bloc judging and pre-determined results, this is really no better than soccer hooligans.

Wow, I make one negative comment in years (which I meant to be humorous) and am in turn accused of all sorts of crimes. I am not partisan and I have never attacked or even criticized a skater. I've been watching figure skating since Dick Button was competing, but find myself baffled by a scoring system that depends on tiny errors not visible to the naked eye. But, please, lighten up. This was not a vicious thread.

...though I won't use the word "artistry" since it doesn't exist in the PCS criteria.

Not trying to be a smart Alec, but the explanation of criteria for Interpretation does say something about "artful manipulation of nuance" and "artistic ways of bringing subtle variations to the intensity, tempo, and dynamics of the music."

Wow, I make one negative comment in years (which I meant to be humorous) and am in turn accused of all sorts of crimes. I am not partisan and I have never attacked or even criticized a skater. I've been watching figure skating since Dick Button was competing, but find myself baffled by a scoring system that depends on tiny errors not visible to the naked eye. But, please, lighten up. This was not a vicious thread.

Wallylutz = needs to get over him/herself. I wouldn't mind it if I were you.

Not trying to be a smart Alec, but the explanation of criteria for Interpretation does say something about "artful manipulation of nuance" and "artistic ways of bringing subtle variations to the intensity, tempo, and dynamics of the music."

to be clear, I didn't have anyone in particular in mind nor was I taking down names. I do appreciate when someone tries to explain their viewpoint, but not when someone tries to play tough and spin their way through a blunder, it just makes them look really bad.

Actually, the debate about whether falls and other technical mistakes should negatively affect program component scores is quite interesting.

The criticism used to be the opposite of what we are hearing now. When the CoP first came out everyone complained that the PCSs just tracked the tech scores. If you landed a quad, your component scores automatically went up across the board.

Now the judges seem to be taking greater care with the component scores. What I would really like to see is a larger spread among the five scores. Lots of Transitions does not necessarily mean outstanding Choreography, for instance.

Actually, the debate about whether falls and other technical mistakes should negatively affect program component scores is quite interesting.

The criticism used to be the opposite of what we are hearing now. When the CoP first came out everyone complained that the PCSs just tracked the tech scores. If you landed a quad, your component scores automatically went up across the board.

Now the judges seem to be taking greater care with the component scores. What I would really like to see is a larger spread among the five scores. Lots of Transitions does not necessarily mean outstanding Choreography, for instance.

Totally agree with your final point, here. I think that a lot of skaters have gotten high PCS on just one or two of the PCS criteria when there should be a bigger spread.

Wow, I make one negative comment in years (which I meant to be humorous) and am in turn accused of all sorts of crimes. I am not partisan and I have never attacked or even criticized a skater. I've been watching figure skating since Dick Button was competing, but find myself baffled by a scoring system that depends on tiny errors not visible to the naked eye. But, please, lighten up. This was not a vicious thread.

I didn't see Wallylutz making a personal accusation against you at all. There was such a quick and instant swamp of unfounded accusations against the judging and the judges that I was taken aback as well. Even when I quoted someone as a segue for a remark, I didn't mean to pick on that person. It's about an observation of a general trend and behavior in the fandom. The judging the judges certainly took much less time than the trained judges judging the skaters while on the scene, with strict guidelines, as well as the aid of the computer and video technology. In fact, it took no time at all. How would these same people like for judges to do their job the way they do the judging themselves? Judging skaters, judges, the whole scoring system and organizations, by instincts, instant reactions, and accusatory conclusions with no accounting and evidences?